Police don't need real-time access to your messages. They get a warrant, seize your device, and extract everything. The question is whether they had the right to look.
Internet and cybercrime charges are among the fastest-growing areas of criminal law in Ontario. They carry serious consequences for employment, travel, and reputation, and the digital evidence in these cases can feel overwhelming if you don't understand how it actually works. I defend clients across Toronto, the GTA, and Ontario facing digital and online offences. The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security and the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre publish general information on online crime in Canada, but this page is about how these charges actually play out in the courtroom.
Online Threats and Criminal Harassment
A text message, a social media post, or a series of unwanted messages can lead to criminal charges. Under the Criminal Code, uttering threats and criminal harassment apply to digital communications just as they do to in-person conduct. Many clients are genuinely surprised that something they sent during an argument landed them in court. See our dedicated uttering threats page for detail on how these cases typically resolve.
Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images
Sharing or distributing an intimate image of another person without their consent is a specific Criminal Code offence, sometimes called "revenge porn." The offence applies even if the image was originally shared willingly. It covers photos and videos shared by text, social media, email, or any other digital platform. First-time offenders, particularly in the context of a relationship breakdown, are sometimes able to resolve these matters without a criminal record, but the reputational stakes are high and immediate legal advice is essential.
Luring and Child Exploitation Charges
Online luring means using a phone or computer to contact someone you believe is under 18, in order to commit a sexual offence. These charges are taken extremely seriously. They carry mandatory minimum sentences, restored for a number of child sexual offences by the Protecting Victims Act in July 2026, and registration under SOIRA. Since R. v. Ndhlovu and Bill S-12 registration is a rebuttable presumption for most offences, but it remains mandatory for serious offences against minors, and its duration depends on the offence and any prior record. Child exploitation charges are similarly grave.
If you are facing charges in this category, getting experienced defence counsel as early as possible is critical. The investigation often begins weeks or months before the arrest. Every statement you make before calling a lawyer can be used against you.
Identity Theft and Online Fraud
Identity theft, phishing, and fraud conducted online are charged under the same Criminal Code provisions as offline fraud, but the digital evidence trail adds significant complexity. See our fraud page for detail on how these cases work. In cybercrime fraud cases specifically, the Crown often has a more substantial paper trail, which means the defence strategy shifts toward challenging how that evidence was obtained and whether the chain of custody was properly maintained throughout the investigation.
How Police Build a Digital Evidence Case
Most clients don't fully understand how digital evidence is gathered. Police do not need to read your messages in real time. They obtain warrants to seize devices, then extract data forensically. They can recover deleted messages, browser history, GPS location data, and content from apps you thought were private. IP addresses are traced through internet service providers. Cloud storage accounts are subpoenaed. The questions I ask are: Was each piece of this evidence obtained with a valid warrant? Were the warrants properly drafted and based on genuine reasonable grounds? Was the chain of custody maintained from seizure through forensic analysis?
Charter Rights and Device Searches
The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that Canadians have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their digital devices and online accounts, and in R. v. Bykovets (2024) it held that even an IP address attracts that protection, so police need judicial authorization to compel one. As a general rule police cannot search your phone, computer, or cloud data without a warrant based on reasonable grounds. The significant exception is R. v. Fearon, which permits a limited warrantless search of a phone incident to a lawful arrest where the search is truly incidental, tailored in scope, and properly documented in the officer's notes. Whether those conditions were actually met is one of the most productive lines of challenge in a digital evidence case. If they did, that evidence can be challenged under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A successful Charter application can result in the exclusion of the digital evidence, which in many cybercrime cases represents the entirety of the Crown's case. For more on how Charter motions work at trial, see my guide to criminal trials in Toronto.
The First Rule: Do Not Speak to Police
Police may approach you saying they want to "clear things up" or confirm details about your online activity. Anything you say in that conversation can be used against you. Never consent to a voluntary search of your devices. Never explain your online activity to police without a lawyer present. The moment you think police are investigating your online conduct, call me. The less they have, the better your position. Contact me for a free, confidential consultation; see also our FAQ.
